Bill C-14 appears more restrictive in comparison to the radical recommendations from the government assisted dying committee. The bill does not extend euthanasia to mature minors, to people with dementia, or to people who seek death by lethal injection for psychological reasons alone. The bill appears to require the person to have a terminal condition and it appears to require a 15 day waiting period.

In reality Bill C-14 provides legal immunity to anyone, who kills another, while the bill fails to provide effective oversight of the law or conscience rights for healthcare professionals.

There are significant problems with the design of Bill C-14.

1. Bill C-14 does not provide effective oversight of the law. The bill requires approval for euthanasia or assisted suicide by two independent physicians or nurse practitioners, without requiring before the death oversight from an independent third-party (judge or committee). The bill permits the doctor or nurse practitioners that approve the act to also do the act and then also report the act. There is no effective oversight when the same person approves the injection, does the injection and then reports the injection.

2. Bill C-14 provides legal immunity to “any person” who directly participates in the act. Section 241(3) provides legal immunity to any person who does anything for the purpose of aiding a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner to provide a person with medical assistance in dying. Section 241(5) provides legal immunity to anyone who does anything, at another person’s explicit request, for the purpose of aiding that other person to self-administer a substance that has been prescribed for that other person as part of the provision of medical assistance in dying. These sections of the bill are very dangerous because they provide legal immunity to any person who is directly involved with killing another person.

It is unbelievable that legal immunity is provided to anyone. This bill provides the perfect cover for acts of murder.

3. The bill does not limit euthanasia and assisted suicide to people who are terminally ill. The bill defines terminal as: their natural death has become reasonably foreseeable, taking into account all of their medical circumstances, without a prognosis necessarily having been made as to the specific length of time that they have remaining.

What does it mean that natural death has become reasonably foreseeable? How will that be determined if a prognosis is not necessary? This section of the bill provides an illusion of compromise.

4. The “safeguards” are an illusion. The bill requires a medical or nurse practitioner to: be of the opinion that the person meets all of the criteria. To “be of the opinion” is a very low standard. It will be impossible to prove that the medical or nurse practitioner was not of the opinion that the person met all of the criteria.

The bill requires a medical or nurse practitioner to: be satisfied that the request was signed and dated by the person — or by another person under subsection (4). To “be satisfied” is a very low standard. Section 4 also enables any person to sign the request. It states anyone can sign the request so long as they are: at least 18 years of age and who understands the nature of the request.

Bill C-14 is a Trojan horse that falsely claims to provide clear and effective guidelines.

5. The bill does not provide conscience protection for medical or nurse practitioners. Medical professionals who consider killing patients as the antithesis to care are not given conscience protection in Bill C-14. Section 241.31 requires medical and nurse practitioners to be involved in the act by requiring them to send requests for euthanasia or assisted suicide to a “designated recipient” or the Minister of Health.

Conclusion:Bill C-14 does not provide effective oversight of the law, it is not a harm reduction model, nor does it provide safe spaces for people who are particularly opposed to being killed by lethal injection and it does not provide conscience protection for medical professionals who oppose killing patients. This bill provides the perfect cover for acts of murder by enabling “anyone” to directly participate in the act

This bill is particularly dangerous for Canadians in their time of need.

EPC is a national organization of citizens and groups who support caring measures and oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide. EPC has more than 25,000 supporters.

4 comments:

rybnik 1950
said...

Dying with Dignity Bill would be very helpful in preventing physicians murdering patients, for sure here on Miramichi New Brunswick (NB). Patients were kept in the hospital to be murdered on an account of an immigrant physician who was targeted for an annihilation. I should know because I had executed an innocent patient, Mrs. Susan Dickson, with an anesthetic which was tampered with on November 6, 1975. Premeditated murder was swept under the rug as soon as I wrote down that it was a homicide. Then for twenty five years I was walking around branded as a doctor killer, but still forced to practice anesthesiology only and an anonymous Canadian citizen, NewBrunswicker was sitting on the death row waiting to be murdered by me when the time will be ripe. The time was right, the victim for a murder kept in the hospital, then tortured and murdered when the time came, which was on June 15, 2001. The Victim was Mark Oliver Saulnier 25, but the killer was a wrong doctor. I cried foul, murder and for being a whistleblower performing a civil act have been wasted as a professional. Fact that there is no forensic medicine service in NB, helps in perpetuating the murderous situation. Bill DWD will help to clarify the situation to some point. Respect, Wlodzimierz Sokolowski MD

We have no right to determine, who will die and who will live. Each life on its own has a reason for being in this world. This life was created by God and is His creation. Nobody can take it in their hands to terminate someone else's life. God only gives us, what we can stand, He does not give us more than we can carry. I personally know of one case, where the family had decided to terminate the father's life, only to come to the conclusion 3 days later, that they probably should not have done it, because now they felt guilty of having taken him out of his sufferings and are wondering now, if they did it themselves out of convenience! So the end result was not the result they had anticipated. I am against it totally and feel, that if the right of living is taken away by people, there is mostly an alternative reason behind it, even if this was not meant to be so at the time of their decision making. The guilt comes out afterwards. Lt God decide, when it is time for someone's demise, don't make it another individuals "choice".

There is something horribly wrong with our country and its leaders when we are rushing to implement a law to create an "exception" to homicide! It is even worse when we cloak it in terms of "medical treatment", which is simply doublespeak. This is paving the way for a new holocaust, especially if, one day, the requirement for the patient's consent is removed.